> > And yet you agree that for a set> > of lines to contain an unfindable line it is necessary> > that it contain at least two findable lines.> > Please do not intermingle the facts.

Why should WH bhe prohibited from doing what WM does so regularly?

> If we go through the list of FISONs> 1> 1,2> 1,2,3> ...

But such an ellipsis represents a list that does not ever terminate.

We maintain

You maintain nonsense!

> > However, in fact nobody claims a last line. The only alternative, in> actual infinity, is that all naturals are there, but not in one line> but in two or more lines (unless you want to claim that they are in> any empty line). And this claim is contradicted by the construction> principle of the list.

Not outside Wolkenmuekenheim.

Outside Wolkenmuekenheim one can see that in order to include all naturals in such aa set of lines one needs more than any finite set of lines, because for each line included, one needs some (but not necessarily the immediate) successor line.> > What is difficult to understand?

That is our question, and WM doesn't have any good answer to it.> > Regards, WM

WM has frequently claimed that HIS mapping from the set of all infinite binary sequences to the set of paths of a CIBT is a linear mapping.

In order to show that such a mapping is a linear mapping, WM would first have to show that the set of all binary sequences is a linear space (which he has not done and apparently cannot do) and that the set of paths of a CIBT is also a vector space (which he also has not done and apparently cannot do) and then show that his mapping, say f, satisfies the linearity requirement that f(ax + by) = af(x) + bf(y),where a and b are arbitrary members of the field of scalars and x and y and f(x) and f(y) are arbitrary members of suitable linear spaces.

While this is possible, and fairly trivial for a competent mathematician to do, WM has not yet been able to do it.